Maybe the Obama administration won’t be hostile to coal after all. Steven Chu, President-elect Barack Obama’s chosen energy secretary, called more coal-fired power plants “my worst nightmare” two years ago. But in a Senate hearing this week he said coal is a “great national resource” and expressed optimism that his agency could help develop technology to capture and store coal plants’ greenhouse-gas emissions. He also said he would oppose a “hard moratorium” on the building of coal plants that lacked carbon-capture technology.
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- American_Way on Is tea party movement Perot redux?
- Daniel on Palin a charismatic gal with crib notes
- Phantom on Open thread 2/9
- Phantom on Open thread 2/9
- ANTI on Open thread 2/9
- sursum on Open thread 2/9
- Shocker_1 on Palin a charismatic gal with crib notes
- Shocker_1 on Palin a charismatic gal with crib notes
- Shocker_1 on Palin a charismatic gal with crib notes
- gster on Palin a charismatic gal with crib notes
57 Comments
You’ve got to be kidding….somebody with some reason!
I guess, to govern sometimes is to go against your dearly held ideals in dealing with reality. It is sad that this noble trait is often seen as a weakness, as opposed to undying loyalty to even ethically bankrupt positions.
Since the energy secretary will be living in the East Coast where they use an abundant of coal, perhaps he figured that he didn’t want to be the reason people freeze to death because of high coal prices.
Or perhaps he does want to freeze some wallets? With new technologies that cost will be passed on to the customer.
A sideways approach to place co2 monitoring devices on coal plants and have fines directly attributed to the coal plants and of course the costs passed onto the customer.
The loser here? – the customer…
For those with reading disabilities,
“and expressed optimism that his agency could help develop technology to capture and store coal plants’ greenhouse-gas emissions.”
The large-scale technology does not exist yet, it may be too expensive, and there is the huge storage space problem.
Just why do we need any more power plants of any kind?
I am unaware of any blackouts or power shortages.
I DO see lights running all hours of the day and night that are not necessary.
THE cheapest and cleanest form of energy is in conserving what we already have. Let’s explore that.
Let’s explore that.
Way to volunteer junior. We’ll wait while you power down your PC.
I am unaware of any blackouts or power shortages.
THE cheapest and cleanest form of energy is in conserving what we already have. Let’s explore that.
It is the larger button on your tower.
‘So-Called “Clean Coal” Technology Offers Promise Along with Considerable Risks, New Report Finds‘
http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/coal-power-warming-world-0151.html
The report found that carbon-capture-and-storage technology, while promising, is saddled with many unanswered questions about scale, safety and cost:
———–
More, and PDF at link.
Praise be.
Reality and responsibility has an awakening effect.
Rep. Steven Brunk says the new Holcomb plant will be a clean coal plant. That’s surprising since the technology doesn’t exist yet. Or maybe the Republicans have just been hiding the technology. Oh wait, Brunk is a liar and a fraud, kinda like the claim that coal burning is clean.
Reality and responsibility has an awakening effect.
No kidding. It’s easy to spout off the ideologues’ wish list, until one actually has to assume the responsibility to act.
There is genuine hope for this administration. Obama has shown, so far, the inclinations of a principled pragmatist, much as Reagan was (though coming from the other side of the political spectrum). That’s always a good thing.
Now if he can reign in the 2nd amendment ideologues in his party (note Bobby Rush’s (Criminal Idiot, Ill) offering in H.R. 45), and focus on the things that matter instead of offering up the next salvo in the culture wars, he could be quite successful.
outlander posted January 15, 2009 at 10:18 am
Reality and responsibility has an awakening effect.
————————
For those with reading disabilities,
“and expressed optimism that his agency could help develop technology to capture and store coal plants’ greenhouse-gas emissions.”
‘So-Called “Clean Coal” Technology Offers Promise Along with Considerable Risks, New Report Finds‘
http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/coal-power-warming-world-0151.html
“The report found that carbon-capture-and-storage technology, while promising, is saddled with many unanswered questions about scale, safety and cost:”
———–
More, and PDF at link.
I am unaware of any blackouts or power shortages.
I’m not surprised; you’re unaware of a great deal.
Check out California’s recent history with the power grid, for a start.
“Check out California’s recent history with the power grid, for a start.”
You mean when Enron was intentionally restricting the electricity supply to drive up prices?
As I recall, the difficulties in California were caused by a corrupt energy brokering firm, not a lack of available power.
Obama and his picks continue to disappoint.
GMC70 posted January 15, 2009 at 10:30 am
I am unaware of any blackouts or power shortages.
I’m not surprised; you’re unaware of a great deal.
Check out California’s recent history with the power grid, for a start.
—————-
You need to carefully check the reasons for those yourself, GMC70.
Maggot, JR –
Enron’s actions were only part of the story. As usual, gov’t created the regulations which made such market conditions not just possible, but inevitable.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_electricity_crisis
My in-laws are in CA; one worked for PG&E. They confirmed the role of ENRON and a couple other traders in engineering the fiasco.
Republican governor Pete Wilson had engineered a wierd divestment law that required PGE to sell off its generating capacity – largely to Duke Power – and then buy back power. Wilson acknowledged that his plan was fatally flawed; that is what set the groundwork for the debacle.
California was the first state to deregulate its energy market. In the mid-90’s, under Republican Governor Pete Wilson, California began deregulating the electricity industry. Wilson admitted publicly that defects in the deregulation system would need fixing by “the next governor”.
GMC, the problem happened because of deregulation, not because of more regulation.
Last year, 144,000 more people moved out of California than moved in.
Quite telling I say.
How is that telling? More people moved out of North Dakota than moved in. What’s your point?
#
bth
Posted January 15, 2009 at 10:55 am | Permalink
California was the first state to deregulate its energy market. In the mid-90’s, under Republican Governor Pete Wilson, California began deregulating the electricity industry. Wilson admitted publicly that defects in the deregulation system would need fixing by “the next governor”.
====================================================
. . . which allowed GWB to deregulate the energy trading companies, like Enron, which caused the recent spike in oil. It wasn’t supply and demand, as most claimed, but the same thing Enron was doing that drove prices up.
It would seem that the one example cited to illustrate an urgent need for increased power generation was not only insubstantial but somewhat dishonest.
Maggot, maggot, maggot.
As it’s often said, for every complex problem, there’s a simple solution.
And it’s wrong.
Try to look past your ideology and neat labels at the whole world; there’s a lot more going on than a simple “deregulation, BAD, Ugh!,” as Ben, for example, has acknowledged.
GMC, it appears the deregulation was bad as it cost Californians billions which Enron pocketed. How’s that Enron stock doing anyway? The story is four years old but it sounds like this is the first time you’ve heard about it.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/06/01/eveningnews/main620626.shtml
GMC70 posted January 15, 2009 at 11:13 am
As it’s often said, for every complex problem, there’s a simple solution.
And it’s wrong.
———————
Providing long-term, sustainable, low or zero GHG emitting energy is a complex problem.
But coal is not part of that solution, unless the technology, costs, and risks of CCS can be solved. And “simply” put, that seems unlikely.
Has he talked to our so called experts WE, Kathy and Rod? They know all about emissions of some kind.
#
Maggotpunk
Posted January 15, 2009 at 11:16 am | Permalink
GMC, it appears the deregulation was bad as it cost Californians billions which Enron pocketed. How’s that Enron stock doing anyway? The story is four years old but it sounds like this is the first time you’ve heard about it.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/06/01/eveningnews/main620626.shtml
==================================================
You know, the story might be four years old, but where did congress stop what caused the problem? Answer: they didn’t. It’s still going on. Remember four dollar a gallon gas? That was caused wholly by the futures market, NOT supply and demand, and that is what Enron traded in . . . the futures market. Demand was on the decrease the whole time gas prices were rising. The reason gas prices are what they are now is because the market collapsed, and not because of supply/demand.
Do some research, and you might understand it.
Uh, JM:
The futures market, the collapse of the oil price, are examples of the workings of supply and demand, not of the lack of it. It’s not always pretty, and it’s not always “fair” it, but it works.
Do some researchLearn some economics, and you might understand it.Fixed it for you.
Hey cosMo,
Look at the picture of Chu above. He is saying: “pull my finger I want to contribute to AGW”.
In stereo even…
JM, Your understanding of economics is childish to say the least.
The fundamentals of supply/demand are effected by world events like conflict in the middle-east, labor strikes in Nigeria and other world events on the supply side. The demand decreased because of the high prices and the fall of prices was caused by the decrease in demand as well as the lifting the ban on offshore drilling or supply. The collapse of the futures markets reflected these changes among other things.
Enron went bankrupt in 2001 and had nothing to do with $4 a gallon gas.
‘Coal Power in a Warming World‘
http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/clean_energy/Coal-power-in-a-warming-world.pdf
Warming planet indeed…
Dec 20th
Nearly 1500 cold temp records & 770 snow records set in U.S. in past week!
More global warming? Atlanta Bismarck Boise Butte Chicago Denver Houston Miami Minneapolis Mobile New York Oklahoma City Olympia Phoenix Portland Raleigh San Francisco Seattle St. Louis
At this great website you can click on individual dots to view details of
the particular record that was broken
http://mapcenter.hamweather.com/records/7day/us.html?c=mintemp
Thanks to Marc Morano for this link
Clean coal is an energy of the future, doesn’t exist yet.
Record low temperature set this morning
Sometime before 4 a.m., the mercury at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport dipped to 19 degrees, besting the record low of 20 degrees set for this day 44 years ago. And the cold isn’t over yet.
By Karen Gaudette, Nicole Tsong and Sara Jean Green
Seattle Times staff reporters
Downtown Seattle, caught in a deep freeze with the snowy Olympic mountains in the backround.
Bitterly cold air hits much of nation
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2008522970_webweather15m.html
Climate change regulations from the Dems and Envors are on the way. Believe me it will cost us and make no difference what so ever, it is a political thing. I plan to oppose climate change regulation at every opportunity.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D95NNE8O0&show_article=1
Too much to cut&paste here. Follow the link for the 2008 record lows…
http://www.iceagenow.com/Record_Lows_2008.htm
Hey! Where the eff is all that global warming we were promised? My feet have been frozen since November!
“Hey! Where the eff is all that global warming we were promised? My feet have been frozen since November!”
Oh No!! PavlovJed just rung the bell.
Preparing for insults (from you-know-who) in 3…2…
#
george
Posted January 15, 2009 at 3:44 pm | Permalink
Climate change regulations from the Dems and Envors are on the way. Believe me it will cost us and make no difference what so ever, it is a political thing. I plan to oppose climate change regulation at every opportunity.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D95NNE8O0&show_article=1
________________________
Madison Wi, imposed those Draconian laws and now their paying for it with record temps.
AHHH Sweet revenge. You know what they say “you can’t fool mother nature”.
#
donndublin
Posted January 15, 2009 at 3:28 pm | Permalink
JM, Your understanding of economics is childish to say the least.
The fundamentals of supply/demand are effected by world events like conflict in the middle-east, labor strikes in Nigeria and other world events on the supply side. The demand decreased because of the high prices and the fall of prices was caused by the decrease in demand as well as the lifting the ban on offshore drilling or supply. The collapse of the futures markets reflected these changes among other things.
Enron went bankrupt in 2001 and had nothing to do with $4 a gallon gas.
======================================================
Pardon me, but it had everything to do with the oil prices. Because Enron went bankrupt did not mean what got it there was changed. It wasn’t. Enron traded in the energy futures market, and manipulated it to their advantage . . . or so they thought. They manipulated the supply and demand side in order to control the price of energy.
That is the same thing the futures traders were doing in order to increase the price of oil, thus increasing profits. Let me ask you a question: What is the largest oil company in the world?
Saudi Aramco
#
donndublin
Posted January 15, 2009 at 6:50 pm | Permalink
Saudi Aramco
========================================================
Wrong. Here’s a hint: it’s not an oil producing company.
The futures markets are huge with million of traders and not just oil companies. Governments like China, Saudi Arabia, brokerage firms, pension funds, and the list goes and so on. To say one company manipulated the market is idiotic.
You’re going to have to show some references to back up your claim.
PetroChina may have just become the biggest. I’ve got to get home for now.
#
donndublin
Posted January 15, 2009 at 6:57 pm | Permalink
The futures markets are huge with million of traders and not just oil companies. Governments like China, Saudi Arabia, brokerage firms, pension funds, and the list goes and so on. To say one company manipulated the market is idiotic.
You’re going to have to show some references to back up your claim.
===================================================
If you have two hours of free time, watch the program at the following link:
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/ascentofmoney/
I guarantee you it won’t be a waste of your time. It is one of the most informative programs I’ve watched in a long time on the financial crisis from the bottom up.
I didn’t say one company manipulated the market. Is it possible for us to have a non-antagonistic discussion? There’s the open possibility we both might learn something in the process.
Or skip to the “Blowing Bubbles” section of the video. Fascinating!
Looks like the big players set the tone of where futures go.
“So, now you know what’s in the report. But the $64,000 question is—how do you use this information? Most analysts tend to focus on the net position changes from report to report for the various groups. Are the large funds net long this week, or net short? Where were they positioned last week? Many watch where the largest traders with the most assets, or what some call the “smart money,” are entering and exiting trades, because they generally have the most power in terms of moving the market. These typically are the large commercials and/or large speculators,..”
You’d have to believe that a mere 200,000 barrels a day accounts for a dollar a barrel price difference. Cons might buy it.
“Global oil consumption is expected to be only 85.8 million barrels a day this year, a slight decrease (200,000 barrels a day) from 2007.http://uspolitics.about.com/b/2008/12/16/global-oil-consumption-drops.htm
Chu pacifying: Here kid, here is a sucker, now be quite!
A two-faced Leftist?
I am shocked, SHOCKED~
JM, First I apologize for my antagonistic approach. I’ve become accustomed to that on this blog. It is my desire to have a mature discussion of topics.
I agree that one company can’t manipulate a market. Your previous posts led me to believe you thought Enron was responsible. I also believe that manipulation can affect prices but only short term.
The supply/demand effect is still prevalent. The supply side of that equation is manipulated by OPEC, government sanctions on drilling ect. Nationalized companies have an unfair advantage with their mass resources of capital and mandates which can “throw a wrench into the machine” of a fair and free market. When free market forces are manipulated you often have spikes but the equilibrium eventually prevail. The spike in prices last summer was followed by sharp decline and is now going back up to find the “market price”. Of course when prices are unstable, the traders make more profits.
I’ve traded various futures contracts and I avoided those that can be easily manipulated like currencies and oil. Information is the key to making money in that casino.
[url=http://diflucanmed.weebly.com/]Diflucan[/url] (Fluconazole) is used for treating and preventing certain yeast and fungal infections. It may also be used for other conditions as determined by your doctor.